↓ Skip to main content

Intermittent drug techniques for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intermittent drug techniques for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006196.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Sampson, Mouhamad Mansour, Nicola Maayan, Karla Soares-Weiser, Clive E Adams

Abstract

Antipsychotic medication is considered the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and is generally regarded as highly effective, especially in controlling positive symptoms. However, long-term antipsychotic exposure has been associated with a range of adverse effects, including extra-pyramidal symptoms (EPS), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), tardive dyskinesia and death. Intermittent drug techniques refers to the 'use of medication only during periods of incipient relapse or symptom exacerbation rather than continuously'. The aim is to reduce the risk of typical adverse effects of antipsychotics by 'reducing long-term medication exposure for patients who are receiving maintenance treatment while limiting the risk of relapse', with a further goal of improving social functioning resulting from the reduction of antipsychotic-induced side effects

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 137 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 21 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 33%
Psychology 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 26 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#736,456
of 16,036,527 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,001
of 11,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,268
of 160,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,036,527 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 160,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.